The Way of Love, 1-13

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 13:2 And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 13:3 If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.

‘Paul establishes the necessity of love in his opening paragraph (1 Cor 13:1-3 Paul then follows this (1 Cor 13:4-7) with a description of the character of love. Finally, Paul ends with the permanence of love and establishes agape love as a mark of true Christianity by asserting, “the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13). Immediately following (1 Cor 14:1), Paul literally challenges the Corinthians to “pursue love;” to put others’ needs before their own.’ (Fee)

Prior quotes a passage from Thomas Merton, which talks about the chaplain at his boarding-school. This man’s interpretation of this chapter was that ‘love’ is equivalent to ‘being a gentleman’. ‘One might go through this chapter of St. Paul and simply substitute the word “gentleman” for “charity” wherever it occurs.’ Merton comments:

‘The Apostles would have been rather surprised at the concept that Christ had been scourged and beaten by soldiers, cursed and crowned with thorns and subjected to unutterable contempt and finally nailed to the Cross and left to bleed to death in order that we might all become gentlemen.’

Prior emphasis that this chapter must be read in the context of the rest of the letter:

‘When applied to the local church, it becomes dynamite. It uncovers all the weaknesses, gaps, failures and sins in any Christian community. It is a particular challenge to any church which has seen outward success in its ministry. These words cut us down to size; they humble us, because we begin to see what really matters to God. They re-direct us as the body of Christ to our true calling. It is probably good for any congregation to assess its life together from time to time in the mirror of this chapter.’

Paul has already stated, in 1 Cor 8:1, that ‘love builds up.’ When spiritual gifts are exercised in love, the body of Christ is edified. When they are exercised in a competitive spirit, the body is not edified.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels – Heiser (Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host) notes that in Jewish thought angels were sometimes considered to speak Hebrew, and sometimes to speak their own esoteric language.  Heiser himself favours the esoteric-language interpretation.  He notes that if 2 Cor 12:2-4 refers to angelic speech, then it cannot have been Hebrew, because Paul would have understood it.

But it may be better to regard this as a rhetorical flourish, rather than indicating anything definite about angelic communication: Suppose I could speak in every language in earth and heaven?’ – even such a gift would be as meaningless din.

So, those with the gift of tongues should not use it unlovingly:

‘Some Christians with the gift of tongues insensitively impose it on others in the congregation; with considerable self-indulgence rather than a deep desire to build up the church, such people override the feelings of those who are either unaccustomed or unsympathetic to this gift.’ (Prior)

Love – Prior points out that the Greek word, agape, was not in common use prior to the time of the NT.  It was taken into the New Testament because the love of God in Christ required a new word.  It is, to borrow Charles Wesley’s words, ‘love divine, all loves excelling’.

Morris says,

‘It is a love for the utterly unworthy, a love which proceeds from a God who is love. It is a love lavished on others without a thought of whether they are worthy to receive it or not. It proceeds rather frmo the nature of the lover, than from any merit in the beloved.’

A resounding gong – Corinth was famous for its “bronze”, and bronze vases were often used to amplify sound in the outdoor theatres. Along with the clanging cymbal, it would be used in the Greek mystery-cults at Corinth, as a way of invoking the gods, driving away demons, or rousing the worshippers. Both instruments were incapable of a melodious sound.

Encomia.  ‘An encomium is a poem or essay written in praise of either an abstract quality or a generalized character type. Common motifs are an introduction to the subject of praise, the distinguished and ancient ancestry of that subject, a catalog or description of praiseworthy acts and qualities, the superior or indispensable nature of the subject, the rewards that accompany the things being praised, and a conclusion urging the reader to emulate the subject.

Biblical encomia that praise an abstract quality include poems in praise of wisdom in the book of Proverbs (3:13-20; 8), God’s law (Ps. 119), love, (1 Cor 13) and faith (Heb. 11). Encomia praising character types include Ps 1,15,112, and Psa 128 (the godly person) and Pr 31:10-31 (the virtuous wife). The Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is a parody of the genre, praising the suffering servant for unconventional reasons.’ (Origin of the Bible)

If I have a faith that can move mountains – Then, as now, ‘moving mountains’ was a figure of speech for performing the impossible. Cf. Mt 17:20.

This points to miracle-working (cf. 1 Cor 12:9-10), and echose the words of Jesus in Mt 17:20; 21:21, and Mk 11:23.:

‘While this phrase obviously points to extraordinary miraculous power, there is a question whether it was understood literally by Jesus and the Apostles. This phrase clearly points to a nature miracle rather than a healing miracle (cf. 12:9-10). It is no coincidence, in my judgment, that Jesus himself never performs this particular miracle and that nature miracles of this sort are astonishingly rare in the lives of the Twelve, Paul, and the early Christian communities. These facts point to the hyperbolic character of this concept and phrase.’ (College Press)

I am nothing – Gifts without grace are worth nothing at all.  As Morris remarks:

‘The Corinthians clearly thought that the possessors of certain gifts were extremely important persons…Not only are they unimportant, they are actually nothing.’

In the words of Jonathan Edwards:

‘Salvation is promised to those who have the graces of the Spirit, but not to those who have merely the extraordinary gifts. Many may have these last, and yet go to hell. Judas Iscariot had them, and is gone to hell. And Christ tells us, that many who have had them, will, at the last day, be bid to depart, as workers of iniquity, Mt 7:22-23. And therefore, when he promised his disciples these extraordinary gifts, he bade them rejoice, not because the devils were subject to them, but because their names were written in heaven; intimating that the one might be, and yet not the other, Lk 10:17. And this shews that the one is an infinitely greater blessing than the other, as it carries eternal life in it.’ (Jonathan Edwards)

Paul here ‘exposes the vanity of every form of self-sacrifice which stops short of surrendering the self to God.’ (Wilson)

If I give all I possess to the poor – What a grand, generous gesture! But without love, it profits me not one bit.

If I…surrender my body to the flames – ‘Although a Roman reader could think of such stories as the suicide of the rejected lover Dido in a famous Roman epic, or self-burning by Indian philosophers, “giving one’s body to be burned” no doubt alludes instead to the standard Jewish tradition of martyrs, some of whom threw themselves into the fire to avoid being forcibly defiled.’ (NT Background Cmty)

13:4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. 13:6 It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. 13:7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

‘We have not in this chapter a methodical dissertation on Christian love, but an exhibition of that grace as contrasted with extraordinary gifts which the Corinthians inordinately valued. Those traits of love are therefore adduced which stood opposed to the temper which they exhibited in the use of their gifts. They were impatient, discontented, envious, inflated, selfish, indecorous, unmindful of the feelings or interests of others., suspicious, resentful, censorious. The apostle personifies love, and places her before them and enumerates her graces, not in logical order, but as they occurred to him in contrast to the deformities of character which they exhibited.’ (Hodge)

‘It is important that Paul uses verbs in describing such love: a loving person will behave in a certain way; he will do, and not do, certain things because of the kind of person he is becoming, through the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Spirit. These qualities, these actions are top priorities for every Christian in a local church. If these are absent, the church will languish and fail, if not disintegrate, however active, successful and large it may be.’ (Prior) All the verbs, by the way, are in the present continuous tense.

‘It is not coincidental that these four verses perfectly describe the character of Jesus himself, and of nobody else. This becomes clear when we substitute “Jesus” for “love” in this passage, and then by contrast insert our own name instead.’ (Prior)

Characteristics of love

The definitive statement on love in Paul occurs in 1 Cor. 13. Rhetorical ability, preaching, knowledge, mountain-moving faith, charity towards the poor, or even martyrdom are nothing without agape. First Corinthians 13:4–8a lists several characteristics of this love.

First, it is long-suffering [makrothumia] (v. 4). This is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It refers to a quality that does not seek revenge but suffers wrong in order to act redemptively.

Second, love is kind (translated gracious, virtuous, useful, manageable, mild, pleasant, benevolent—the opposite of harsh, hard, sharp, or bitter). Third, love is not envious (covetous), does not jealously desire what it does not possess.

Fourth, love does not promote itself; it is not puffed up (1 Cor. 8:1). Paul says in Phil. 2:3, “In humility consider others as more important than yourselves” (HCSB).

Fifth, love does not behave itself in an unbecoming fashion. Believers are to avoid even the appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:22).

Sixth, love does not seek its own things. Paul once sent Timothy because “I have no one else like-minded who will genuinely care about your interests; all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:20–21 HCSB).

Seventh, love is not easily provoked (irritated, exasperated, or made angry). When Jesus was hit, He did not retaliate but said, “If I have spoken wrongly, … give evidence about the wrong; but if rightly, why do you hit Me?” (John 18:23 HCSB).

Eighth, love believes the best about people; it “thinketh no evil” (KJV), “does not keep a record of wrongs” (HCSB). In other words, love overlooks insult or wrong (Prov. 17:9; 19:11; cp. Eph. 5:11).

Next, love finds no joy in unrighteousness (wrongdoing, injustice) but rejoices in the truth (1 Cor. 13:6). Paul concludes that love bears all, believes all, hopes all, and endures all things. Love never fails. Solomon said, “Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it” (Song 8:7 KJV).

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary

These virtues of love might be re-phrased as motivational statements:-

I am patient with you because I love you and want to forgive you.
I am kind to you because I love you and want to help you.
I do not envy your possessions or your gifts because I love you and want you to have the best.
I do not boast about my attainments because I love you and want to hear about yours.
I am not proud because I love you and want to esteem you before myself.
I am not rude because I love you and care about your feelings.
I am not self-seeking because I love you and want to meet your needs.
I am not easily angered by you because I love you and want to overlook your offenses.
I do not keep a record of your wrongs because I love you, and “love covers a multitude of sins.”

Expressed in this way, we can see how love binds together all the virtues of Christian character, Col 3:14. Love is not so much a character trait as an inner disposition that produces all the other traits.

(Source unknown)

In the five negatives that follow, Paul is no doubt alluding to character-traits that were prevalent among the Corinthian Christians.’Time and time again the same sins rear their heads: people resent others’ success, blessings or gifts; dissatisfied with their own place and opportunities, they compete for more rom, honour or recognition. Jesus, by contrast, quietly pursued the work to which he had been called; he rejoiced in the growth and success of others, encouraging them onward with sensitive wisdom, but never putting anyone down or ignoring anyone. He never needed to over play his ministry or to blow his own trumpet. Exaggerated, let alone sensationalised, descriptions of the way God is using us betray a lack of confidence in our acceptance by God.’ (Prior)

‘In a few deft strokes Paul paints a picture of the person who is moved and filled with the love of God. In doing so he also throws into relief the self-centredness of much Corinthian – and modern – church life. Only the love of God, keeping us in a deep experience of his complete acceptance of us as we are, can enable us to face up to our self-centredness, to renounce it and to look for light to shine in our inner darkness. In the love of God there is no place for asserting our rights, despising our gifts, envying our brothers and sisters, or treating them insensitively and boorishly. Such love, in any case, turns us outwards to look to the needs and the interests of others: when we notice that our behaviour or attitudes are damaging or offending another person, love propels us to deal with such inner darkness through the grace of the Lord. There is no local church anywhere which does not need more love for this very basic purpose.’ (Prior)

Love…does not envy – ‘The word (’zeloo’) here used may express any wrong feeling excited in view of the good of others; not only envy, but hatred, emulation, and the like.’ (Hodge)

‘If we love our neighbour we shall be so far from envying his welfare, or being displeased with it, that we shall share in it and rejoice in it. His bliss and satisfaction will be an addition to ours, instead of impairing or lessening it…The prosperity of those to whom we wish well can never grieve us; and the mind which is bent on doing good to all can never wish ill to any.’ (M. Henry)

Love…is not proud – Pride was the Corinthian’s besetting sin, 1 Cor 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1. But ‘love is concerned rather to give itself than to assert itself.’ (Morris)

It is not rude – The underlying word, aschemoneo, (from a, negative, and schema, a form) is also found in 1 Cor 7:36. ‘Love’s behaviour is not contrary to the ‘form, fashion, or manner that is proper.’ (Lenski)

It is not self-seeking – ‘Love not merely does not seek that which does not belong to it; it is prepared to give up for the sake of others even what iti is entitled to.’ (Barrett)

The next three negatives concern our attitude towards the weaknesses, sins and failures of others which may force us into lovelessness. (Prior)

Not easily angered – Are there some people who have a habit of rubbing me up the wrong way, of getting under my skin, of irritating me? ‘It is tempting to blame such people for their impact upon us, instead of facing honestly the reality of our own touchiness.’ (Prior) Think of how the disciples stretched Jesus’ patience, and yet ‘he loved them to the end’, Jn 13:1. ‘If we truly love someone with the love of the Lord, we shall see their strengths and their potential rather than their quirks and their foibals. When they do or something which angers us, we shall be able to treat them in the context of what they are in Christ, instead of magnifying what has happened so that it consumes our vision.’ (Prior)

It keeps no record of wrongs – It stores up no resentment, bears no malice. Every Christian needs a good ‘forgetory’! A Christian woman was speaking very kindly about another person. Someone said, “How can you speak about her like that? Don’t you remember the time she was so nasty to you?” “Oh, no,” replied the woman, “I distinctly remember forgetting that!”

When someone says, “I can forgive, but I can’t forget,” what they really mean is, “I can’t forgive.”

Love does not delight in evil – For to do so is a sign of deep depravity, Rom 1:32. A good example of ‘delighting in evil’ is found in the sin of gossiping. But love does not take pleasure in exposing evil in others, but on the contrary, love ‘covers a multitude of sins’. (1 Pet 4:8)

‘Especially when there is little to encourage faith, love strengthens us to trust in the dark, to penetrate through to the other side despite the mountains of doubt, knowing that our Father God is in control and will ultimately demonstrate his victory. More than that, love enables us to exercise a strong assurance that, however black it seems, God has not lost his way and has for us “a hope and a future.”’ (Jer 29:11) (Prior)

Always hopes – There thought ‘is not that of unreasoning optimism, which fails to take account of reality. It is rather a refusal to take failure as final.’ (Morris)

Taking verses 6 and 6 together we can agree with Stott that there is a difference between a tolerant mind (which rejoices in the truth but will oppose evil) and a tolerant spirit (which will always protect, trust, hope, and persevere).  For, ‘how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be wrong?’  (Christ the Controversialist, 17)

13:8 Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, 13:10 but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

As Hays remarks,

‘this is the part of the chapter that most clearly shows that it was composed to deal with the specific problem of the evaluation of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian community. Love is mentioned only in the beginning and end of the unit (vv. 8a, 13); all the intervening material (vv. 8b–12) highlights the temporary status of spiritual gifts, especially tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (vv. 8b–9). Had Paul been writing a general “hymn to love,” he would hardly have emphasized this contrast so strongly.’

Love never ends – ‘never fails’ (NIV).

‘While the gifts of the Spirit are a means of grace, divine love is grace itself,’ (Wilson) and therefore remains when the means cease.

‘This love never folds under pressure of the most intense and sustained kind. This love continues through death into eternity. This is the love of God.’ (Prior)

Paul underlines the priority of love by mentioning the three gifts at the top of the Corinthians’ list of priorities – prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. ‘Each of these will either become irrelevant or else be swallowed up in the perfection of eternity v10. (Prior)

In The Lost Message of Paul (ch. 14), Steve Chalke appeals to this phrase to support his own version of universalism (although he eschews that name).  Paul’s words ‘are either true, or irresponsibly misleading. “Never” either means never, or it doesn’t.’  But this is to employ the sort of contextless proof-texting that Chalke himself affects to despise.  His point simply cannot be demonstrated from this text.  For one thing, Paul happens to be discussing human, rather than divine love.  For another thing, the apostle is contrasting the temporary nature of charismatic gifts with the permanence of love, not offering a comment on the eternal destiny of human beings.

Prophecies – ‘the setting forth of what God says to man through the prophet’ (Morris). But when we see God face to face there will be no need for this gift.

Cease – katargeo.

Stilled paeo – meaning simply that tongues will stop.

Knowledge – Probably not ordinary human learning, but the ‘word of knowledge’, 12:8.

Pass away – katargeo.

‘With the writing of the New Testament, and its availability to believers, God’s revelation was closed. Three of the original gifts of the Spirit, namely the revelatory gifts of tongues, prophecy and charismatic knowledge, have now fulfilled their purpose. With the appearance of the New Testament they have, in accordance with 1 Cor 13:8, been removed from the list of early Christian charisms and have ceased to be.’ (Q in Grossmann, Stewards of God’s Grace, 14)

‘The important criterion in determining whether or not a particular spiritual gift will endure is its purpose. The purpose of a mercury vapor light is to illuminate the highway at night. When the sun rises, the highway becomes illuminated by a greater and more perfect light. The mercury vapor light then goes out because it has served its purpose. In a similar way, spiritual gifts-whether knowledge, prophecy, or tongues-will cease to function when a state of perfect spiritual maturity is attained. Their “light” will no longer be required then.’ (Illustrations for Biblical Preaching)

We prophesy in part – God does not reveal everything, so even an inspired prophet only gives a part of the whole truth, cf Deut 29:29.

When perfection comes – ‘Because the sun rises all lights are extinguished.’ (Barth)

When perfection comes

1 Cor 13: 8 Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, 13:10 but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.

This is a key text in the debate about the cessation of the charismata.  We focus here especially on v10 – ‘when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside’ (my emphasis).

Fee: ‘what is complete’

(a) Some have thought this refers to the completed canon is Scripture.  This is the view of B.B. Warfield, and also of Victor Budgen.  Budgen says that the word translated ‘perfect’, which occurs 18 times in the NT, never refers to heaven.  This may be so, but Paul was not referring to a location, but rather to a condition.

‘Perfect’ that which is complete, or mature. Its precise meaning should be determined by the context. According to Barrett, it refers here to ‘totality’, especially ‘the whole truth about God’.

H.M. Carson (Spiritual Gifts For Today?) notes that Paul was, of course, a writer of inspired Scripture:

‘Yet Paul, the author of infallible Scripture, acknowledges that he is still in an imperfect state and will only know fully when perfection comes.  Is he really saying that he will reach fulness of knowledge when he has written his other epistles, and when the new Testament authors have completed their work?’

Schreiner (Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ):

‘In some circles “the perfect” is understood to refer to the New Testament canon. This reading is impossible since Paul had no conception that he was contributing to a completed canon of writings that would function together as an authority for the church in its history. Paul was keenly conscious of his authority as an apostle, and he expected churches to submit to his authority. But he did not have any notion that history would last a long time. To see “the perfect” as referring to the New Testament canon is an example of anachronism.’

(b) Others have thought that it refers to spiritual maturity.  But this is similarly unpersuasive: whose maturity is Paul referring to, and when?  The 21st-century church can scarcely claim to be more spiritually mature than its 1st-century counterpart.  Some have argued that the mature church of Ephesians 4:11-13 is in the apostle’s mind.

(c) The great majority of commentators, ancient and modern, have thought that it refers to the life to come.  This view is supported by Calvin, Poole, and Hodge among older commentators, and Fee, Schreiner and Soards among modern authors.

This is supported by v12, if that verse can be thought of as continuing and extending the thought of v10.  It makes  little sense to say that we shall ‘see face to face’ when the canon of Scripture is completed, and perfect sense to say that we shall do so when Christ returns.

Calvin:

‘Paul might have put it this way: “When we have reached the winning-post, then the things that helped us on the course will be finished with.”…But when will that perfection come?  It begins, indeed, at death, because then we put off many weaknesses along with the body; but it will not be completely established until the day of judgment, as we shall soon learn.’

Samuel Annesley, in Puritan Sermons, Vol 1:-

‘O that I could but discover what my soul should long for; namely, how to look beyond Christ to God, in whom alone is my complete happiness, and then to look in some respect beyond God to Christ, to give the Lamb his peculiar honour, when I shall be with the Almighty, and with the Lamb as in a temple; when the glory of God and of the Lamb shall be the light, (Rev. 21:22, 23,) whereby I shall see that God, who dwelleth in such light, as no mortal eye can behold. (1 Tim. 6:16.) That will be a blessed vision indeed. “When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (1 Cor. 13:10, &c.)’

Matthew Henry:

‘There will be no need of tongues, and prophecy, and inspired knowledge, in a future life, because then the church will be in a state of perfection, complete both in knowledge and holiness. God will be known then clearly, and in a manner by intuition, and as perfectly as the capacity of glorified minds will allow; not by such transient glimpses, and little portions, as here.’

Barnes:

‘The sense here is, that in heaven—a state of absolute perfection—that which is “in part,” or which is imperfect, shall be lost in superior brightness. All imperfection will vanish. And all that we here possess that is obscure shall be lost in the superior and perfect glory of that eternal world.’

Ryle (Old Paths):

‘Here in this world our sense of rest in Christ at best is feeble and partial: but, “when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” (1 Cor. 13:10.)’

Fee:

‘Paul’s distinctions are between “now” and “then,” between what is incomplete (though perfectly appropriate to the church’s present existence) and what is complete (when its final destiny in Christ has been reached and “we see face to face” and “know as we are known”)’

Schreiner:

‘“the perfect” most likely refers to the second coming of Christ, the end of the age. The perfect is equivalent with seeing God face to face (1 Cor 13:12), which most naturally refers to the coming of Christ. “Face to face” often refers to theophanies in the Old Testament (Gen 32:30; Deut 5:4; 34:10; Judg 6:22; Ezek 20:35), and thus seeing a reference to Christ’s return is most probable.’

Thiselton (Shorter Commentary):

‘The completed whole will not come (v. 10) until the end time. But then its arrival will be like the sun that eclipses, swamps, or drenches out, the efforts of candles that we needed when it was dark.’

Grudem (Systematic Theology, 2nd ed.), in the course of an extended discussion of ths subject:

‘1 Corinthians 13:10…refers to the time of Christ’s return and says that these spiritual gifts will last among believers until that time. This means that we have a clear biblical statement that Paul expected these gifts to continue through the entire church age and to function for the benefit of the church until the Lord returns.’

Alan Johnson (IVPNTC):

‘Does perfection refer to some future development of the Corinthians as they individually and corporately mature in love (Talbert, Murphy-O’Connor, Mitchell, Snyder), or to some future eschatological event associated with the parousia of Christ (R. Martin, Carson, Grudem, Ruthven, Schatzmann, Hemphill, Thiselton, Bruce, Witherington, Fee, Turner), or to the completion of the New Testament canon (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, Warfield, Walvoord, Geisler, MacArthur, Gaffin)?

I side with the consensus in identifying perfection with the coming of Christ (1 Cor 1:8; 4:5; 15:50–58). This conclusion alone, however, does not settle the question whether all the Spirit’s manifestations that were present at Corinth are still present today. It simply removes 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 as a text supporting cessation of certain gifts. Whether such gifts are present today will depend on other factors, such as the witness of postbiblical history, larger theological issues and the parallels of modern phenomena with biblical descriptions.’

How relevant is this passage to the cessationist/continuationist discussion?

Schreiner knows that this verse is used by continuationists as evidence that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit will continue until the Parousia.  He agrees that such a reading is possible, but not necessary.

Thiselton notes that few serious cessationist arguments rely on an exegesis of this text.  For instance, he says that neither Aquinas, Calvin nor Hodge appeal to this passage in their advocacy of a cessationist (or -near-cessationist) position.

Thiselton concludes:

These verses should not be used as a polemic for either side in this debate. All that is clear is that the gifts cease at the eschaton. It may be natural to assume that they continue up to the eschaton, since “prophecy” and “knowledge” belong together with “tongues.” But the assumption does not become an explicit statement about tongues rather than a possible allusion to them.’

Even John McArthur, that most vocal of modern cessationists, while agreeing that Paul’s teaching here refers to the  time when the believer sees his Lord face to face, says that this passage cannot be used to settle the question about when the charismatic gifts will cease.  MacArthur cites Thomas Edward with approval:

‘If, as seems apparent in the passage, the teleion [“perfect”] refers to the individual’s presence with the Lord, this passage does not refer to some prophetic point in history. These factors mean that this passage does not teach when gifts will cease or how long they will last. It serves to remind the Corinthians of the abiding nature of love in contrast to the gifts, which by their inherent nature are only temporal, only for this life.’

Quoted in MacArthur, John F. Strange Fire (p. 149). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

Aware of the exegetical weakness of the cessationist position, many conservative evangelicals espouse an ‘open but cautious’ approach.

Boice (Foundations of the Christian Faith):

‘We dare not put God in a box on this matter, saying that he cannot give the gifts of healings or miracles today. He can. On the other hand, to say that is not the same thing as saying we have a right to expect healings or that what passes for the miraculous today is authentic.’

Blomberg:

‘Verses 8–12 caution us against ever rashly labeling apparent manifestations of the Spirit as something other than that, on the basis that certain gifts are no longer with us. This is particularly sobering when we recall that the one sin Christ identified as unforgivable was the allegation by certain Jewish leaders that signs of the Spirit’s presence were actually the work of the devil (Mark 3:29–30). But these verses also make plain the imperfection of all current exercise of the gifts. So we should be quick to reject all claims that exalt alleged prophecy, tongues, and the like, above Scripture, or which give them even equal value.’

This is wise counsel.  It should be added, however, that for many evangelicals, ‘open-but-cautious’ has come to mean, in practice, ‘not-very-open-but-very-cautious’.  A degree of over-caution is understandable, given the disrepute into which the more extraordinary gifts have been brought, not least among the purveyors of the so-called ‘prosperity gospel’.

But let exegesis, rather than fear, prejudice or experience, guide us.

Disappears – katargeo, already used twice in v8.

‘Our present knowledge is imperfect because it is partial. This is an imperfection of degree rather than quality. What we know of God by revelation is indeed truly known, for it is infallibly communicated. But when this fragmentary disclosure at last gives place to the beatific vision of God in Christ, “then that which is in part shall be done away.”’ (Wilson)

Paul now illustrates the general truth of v10 with two illustrations: the contrast between childhood and maturity, and the contrast between seeing a poor reflection in a mirror and seeing face to face.

Put…behind me – katargeo.

Now we see in a mirror indirectly – ‘dimly’ (ESV, NRSV, NASB), ‘indistinctly’ (HCSB), ‘darkly’ (KJV).

Ancient mirrors were made of metal, not glass, and the bronze mirrors of Corinth were famous.  But Paul’s point is not the poorness of the image through such a mirror (NIV has ‘a poor reflection as in a mirror’) but, as the NET translation puts it, the fact that the image in a mirror is seen indirectly.  The comparison, then, is not between distorted vision and seeing clearly, but between indirect and direct (seeing ‘face to face’) vision.

We shall see face to face – ‘The sole point of the apostle’s illustration is to contrast indirect and direct knowledge. He is thinking of the well-known contrast in his Greek Bible between ordinary prophets, who knew the Lord merely through visions and dreams (’ainigmata’), and Moses who was promised direct intercourse and a vision of the Lord “face to face, not in any ‘ainigma’”’ (Moffatt) Cf. Num 12:6-8; 1 Jn 3:2.

Ciampa and Rosner thinks that Paul is alluding Num 12:8 and Deut 34:10 here, and is thus contrasting, as some ancient Jewish writers did, Moses’ experience of God (‘face to face’) with that of the other prophets (who received revelation through dreams and visions).

For Thiselton this ‘seeing face to face’ is precisely what is meant by the ‘beatific vision’.  And this will come

‘at the end time, when mutual love will need no sacrament or church or Bible, no knowledge by inference, but the vision of God face to face.’

I shall know fully, even as I am fully known – God’s knowledge of us is immediate and complete.

This verse does not, however, teach that we will one day be omniscient:

‘1 Cor. 13:12 does not say that we will be omniscient or know everything (Paul could have said we will know all things, ta panta, if he had wished to do so) but, rightly translated, simply says that we will know in a fuller or more intensive way, “even as we have been known,” that is, without any error or misconceptions in our knowledge.’

(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed., in a footnote to p1428.  Grudem says that this opens up the prospect of wide-ranging and delightful enquiry in the new creation.)

These three remain – ‘If the Corinthians majored on tongues, prophecy and knowledge, Paul focuses attention on faith, hope and love. These three qualities are the ones which “abide”.’ (Prior)

‘In one sense faith and hope shall be done away, faith being superseded by sight, and hope by actual fruition; (Rom 8:24 2 Cor 5:7) and charity, or love, alone never faileth. (1 Cor 13:8) But in another sense, “faith and hope,” as well as “charity,” ABIDE; namely, after the extraordinary gifts have ceased; for those three are necessary and sufficient for salvation at all times, whereas the extraordinary gifts are not at all so; compare the use of “abide,” 1 Cor 3:14.’ (JFB)

The greatest of these is love – Love is enjoined in the greatest commandment, Mk 12:30f; it is the fulfilling of the law, Rom 13:10; it is pre-eminent above tongues, 1 Cor 13:1; prophecy, knowledge and faith, 1 Cor 13:2, benevolence and martyrdom, 1 Cor 13:3; it is the greatest of all, 1 Cor 13:13.

Love is the greatest of these eternal virtues, because love is divine. ‘God does not believe nor hope, but he loves. Love belongs to his essence. Like God himself, it could not change its nature except for the worse. Love is the end in relation to which the two other virtues are only means, and this relation remains even in the state of perfection.’ (Godet)

Love is the heart of every virtue

‘If love is the soul of Christian existence, it must be at the heart of every other Christian virtue. Thus, for example,

  • justice without love is legalism;
  • faith without love is ideology;
  • hope without love is self-centeredness;
  • forgiveness without love is self-abasement;
  • fortitude without love is recklessness;
  • generosity without love is extravagance;
  • care without love is mere duty;
  • fidelity without love is servitude.

Every virtue is an expression of love. No virtue is really a virtue unless it is permeated, or informed, by love.’ (Richard P. McBrien, formatting added)

Preacher: less is more

‘Why is this passage so memorable? Its power comes from its metaphorical richness: sounding bronze and clanging cymbal, mountains moving, memories of childhood play and speech, dim reflections in the mirror. The images carry the message with a minimum of didactic commentary. We should learn from Paul the concision and power of metaphorical preaching. At the same time, the diction of the passage is dear and simple, with short phrases, repeated syntactical patterns, and forceful verbs. Love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Long before Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, Paul knew that less could say more.’ (Hays)